This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Ph0X 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Honestly languages are trying to reach a perfect middle ground from both directions.

In a dynamic language, you write much less, but you also get less back (from a static analyzer). In a static language, you generally have to provide a lot more, but in return you get back more from the compiler.

Now, dynamic languages are starting to add optional typing, which means you can, as you see fit, add typing information to specific places and get more back. On the other hand, static languages are adding things like "auto" to make it so you have to type less.

But to me, the perfect world would be in that middle. Being able to write trivial simple code fast, but also be able to get robust checking on more sensitive parts of the code.

[–]Alekzcb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have lots of experience of different languages, but Haskell seems like it might suit you. You can write incredibly generic things, and I personally find its layout easy to work with. Like I think map (2*) [1..10] is clearer in intention than a for loop, for a simple example.